SentinelScan Cloud MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, and it does state the core operation and return value. It does not mention edge cases, type coercion, or pure-function guarantees, but for a basic arithmetic tool this is minimally adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one short, direct sentence that conveys the function and result with zero wasted words. It is as concise as possible while remaining informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an extremely simple tool with two numeric parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly. No additional context like side effects, permissions, or pagination is relevant here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'two numbers,' which broadly describes both parameters but does not individually explain a and b, their roles, or any ordering semantics. The parameter names are generic, so more detail would help.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('adds'), the operands ('two numbers'), and the result ('returns the sum'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings echo and server_time, which serve entirely different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the simple arithmetic purpose: use when a sum of two numeric values is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or why it might be preferable to alternatives, though the siblings are unrelated functions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys the observable behavior: return the input text back to the caller. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects,' but the function is so trivial that the behavior is effectively transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and outcome, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema utility with no side effects, this description plus the schema is sufficient for correct invocation. Nothing important is missing at this complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents the single 'text' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond referring to 'provided text.' The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('echoes') with a clear resource ('the provided text') and states the result ('back to the caller'). This is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes it from siblings like add and server_time.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of typical use cases, exclusions, or context. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and basic purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly indicates a safe, read-only operation ('Returns') and specifies the response format as ISO 8601 UTC, which covers the key behavioral expectations for this simple tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value by communicating the action, resource, format, and timezone.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema utility tool, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what is returned and in what format, and there are no hidden inputs, prerequisites, or edge cases to document.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete and there is nothing to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Returns'), a clear resource ('the current server time'), and includes the output format and timezone. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools 'add' and 'echo'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly makes it clear this tool is for retrieving the server time, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. For such a simple tool with unrelated siblings, this is adequate though not fully explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.